Noah's Ark

[Orange_Crush]

Hmmm... This, coming from the proponent of a scientific materialism that defines that the only framework from which to interpret evidence is the a priori belief that physical reality is all that exists.

Once again, you show your utter and unabashed hypocrisy.

How would that be a priori?

Are you even serious with this? Do you even know what a priori means?

Prove that physical reality is all that exists.

 

[T-TownVol]

Honest question, that doesn't sound crazy to you? If it doesn't, it is why I continue to try to understand how people like you think. It is alien to me; utterly fascinating.

Does not sound crazy to me at all.

The "issues" I am referring to are the only "issues that matter, the "issue" of salvation. All the other crud is man trying to understand things that God has clearly told us, in the Bible, that we will never understand as humans.

The Bible also tells us that not all will believe, making it easy to agree with RJD's statement.

Salvation/Faith/Belief is a choice that not all will make and although I wish everyone would, God tells us that it is not going to happen.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Disagree on fundamental grounds. In this case, one side has an end state (Biblical) and is working backwards from that to formulate theories and discuss evidence. The other side is starting with available evidence and using that to formulate theories on an ever changing possible end state(s) as new data becomes available.

Two different modes of thought. One requires faith up front, the other puts faith....I guess you can call it...into the evidence and has no preference to any given final explanation.

Hmmm... This, coming from the proponent of a scientific materialism that defines that the only framework from which to interpret evidence is the a priori belief that physical reality is all that exists.

Once again, you show your utter and unabashed hypocrisy.

....and this coming from a person that thinks physical evidence and natural phenomena can somehow explain supernatural beliefs, or would even be relevant for that matter.

I'm merely trying to show the hypocrisy in your statements.

Scientific materialism does not merely "put faith in the evidence". If you were to do any serious reading into philosophy of science, you'd realize a few important things-- admitted by scientific materialist scientists.

First, you'd realize that evidence never "says" anything. It is interpreted from within a paradigm. That paradigm is what the scientist puts their faith in, and that paradigm defines how the evidence is interpreted.

Your paradigm is scientific materialism, and it is a worldview-- not science. It states that matter and energy are all that exist, and thus the only answers that can be interpreted from evidence are answers that agree with the worldview, which included the non-scientific statement that matter and energy are all that exist.

Thus, for you to say above that science (as you have defined it) "has no preference to any given final explanation", is a lie. It also makes you a liar when you try to pose a religious person against science.

You are setting the divider in the wrong place in an effort to wrestle "truth" in the dialog. The divider is between worldviews, not one worldview and "science". The divider is between theism and materialism-- not theism and science.

So, if you are such a scientific mind, and if you do ascribe to the materialistic statements that follow:

"All that exists is matter and energy."

"Evidence can not point to a supernatural answer."

"Only knowledge that is empirically proven is valid."

Empirically prove the above three statements. Otherwise, you are operating in the realms of faith, and need to be honest enough in the dialog to admit it.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Does not sound crazy to me at all.

The "issues" I am referring to are the only "issues that matter, the "issue" of salvation. All the other crud is man trying to understand things that God has clearly told us, in the Bible, that we will never understand as humans.

The Bible also tells us that not all will believe, making it easy to agree with RJD's statement.

Salvation/Faith/Belief is a choice that not all will make and although I wish everyone would, God tells us that it is not going to happen.

I agree with most of what you just said. :hi:

 

[T-TownVol]

I am not a word master.....Making clear points is NOT my strong suit.
I grew up in the most legalistic denomination that there is. It was only through study that I was able to let go of all the "non-issues".

 

[Orange_Crush]

To allay the spurious claim that supernatural actions can't be ascertained from purely natural evidence, I'll show multiple examples from the Bible that prove that they can. Note, to see the validity of the examples, you do not need to believe that they actually happened. You just need to see that IF they did in fact happen, they would have been proof that supernatural actions can be ascertained from purely physical evidence.

The Bible claimed that people believed in Him because of the miracles he performed. They even asked for more so that they might believe. The Bible says that Jesus died and many believed that He was God because, after dying, He appeared to them as alive.

This was proof of the supernatural via purely natural evidence. You don't have to believe that it happened to understand that purely natural evidence would have proven supernatural activity.

The idea that natural evidence can't forensically prove supernatural activity is an invention by scientific materialism. It is a statement of faith.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Are you even serious with this? Do you even know what a priori means?

Prove that physical reality is all that exists.

Yes and yes. Still have no idea what you are trying to convey.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Does not sound crazy to me at all.

The "issues" I am referring to are the only "issues that matter, the "issue" of salvation. All the other crud is man trying to understand things that God has clearly told us, in the Bible, that we will never understand as humans.

The Bible also tells us that not all will believe, making it easy to agree with RJD's statement.

Salvation/Faith/Belief is a choice that not all will make and although I wish everyone would, God tells us that it is not going to happen.

It is the belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God that just floors me. It is the same with other holy scripture. All that you said in that post can be (and is) said by people of other faith (to help validate their own faith). Does that strike you as odd?

 

[T-TownVol]

Human nature is an odd thing. Lets not mix up religion with the word of God.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes and yes. Still have no idea what you are trying to convey.

OK. I'll make it very understandable. Prove that matter and energy are all that exist. If you can't, then it is an a priori statement of faith.

It's that simple.

Note that, from a rational and logical perspective, you would have to have more knowledge than you claim is available to in fact prove what you claim-- thus, your statement of faith is a logical, paradoxical, contradiction.

You would have to escape the physical plane of existence to prove that there is nothing more than the physical plane of existence. Homer Simpson would have to escape the second dimension to disprove the third, which would prove that there was more than the second.

This is important, because your paradigm also claims that the only valid form of knowledge is that which is empirically proven. But that statement is not empirically proven. So, what you have in scientific materialism is a collection of logical contradiction, stated as fact, and claiming not to be a worldview based on faith. I'll give an example from someone I would think you consider a hero. It comes from one of your camp's (perceived) intellectual giants. He makes a religious statement as fact-- religiously defined by his own definition.

Religion is about turning untested belief into unshakable truth through the power of institutions and the passage of time.
Richard Dawkins

The essence of life is statistical improbability on a colossal scale.
Richard Dawkins

The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.
Richard Dawkins

LOL. He just turned untested belief into unshakable truth through the institution of scientific materialism-- literally with the passage of time. lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

It is the belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God that just floors me. It is the same with other holy scripture. All that you said in that post can be (and is) said by people of other faith (to help validate their own faith). Does that strike you as odd?

Why should it? Is it a logical rule that multiple, opposing statements of truth invalidate all statements of truth on that subject?

I am curious why you think that would be the case.

___

Edit, to insert examples, since some on here seem to have a harder time following me:

Darwinian Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium both claim to state the truth of naturalistic evolution. Does that disprove evolution?

String Theory and the Big Bang both claim a cosmological truth. Does that disprove all cosmological truth?

:hi:

 

[rjd970]

Who is definitively saying energy is all there is? News to me.

By definition supernatural events are outside natural evidence, hence the name "supernatural". It would take some incredible events to back up the claims the religious take on faith. Incredible.

What other type of knowledge is there? That taken on faith? If so, why are you even bothering with this trying to explain the flood through physical means?

I really don't think you understand what a priori is, or what the difference is between taking something on faith versus examimining the evidence and putting forth a guess (theory) that fits the evidence....

Example 1: I can observe A, B, and C happening. Further, I can mathematically and/or logically prove D and E are possible. Given all that together, I'm theorizing X is what's happening. Any gaps in the theory is simply stated as unknown, but open to speculation. If any or all of A-D turns out to be misunderstood, or new evidence F comes along that is strong enough then theory X needs to be reformulated or scrapped altogether.

Example 2: X happened. A Priori. I have found evidence A and B that shows this. Evidence C and D that refute it or make it problematic doesn't matter because of the first two sentences. The rest that can't be explained is attributed to supernatural forces taken on faith. Because of this, X could never be scrapped as wrong.

One example is more intellectually honest and requires nothing to be taken as truth up front. Find me that pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil and I'm prepared to seriously discount evolutionary theory. I show you a document that shows Jesus was a figment of imagination or a fraud and it's discounted off the bat. Because of faith, Jesus and his miracles happened, nothing will change that. You've even said as much. If Jesus were to come down from the sky trailing clouds of glory then I would bow down before him and regard the Bible as a scientific document. But it isn't, it's a document of pure faith, outside the rational bounds of thought constrained by evidence.

Which one is a priori?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Who is definitively saying energy is all there is? News to me.

I think the materialist conception of history is valid.
Christopher Hitchins

Darwinism as presented by Darwin contradicted idealistic philosophy, and this contradiction grew deeper with the development of its materialist teaching.
Trofim Lysenko

"[W]e have a prior commitment ... to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to ... produce material explanations... [T]hat materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin

By definition supernatural events are outside natural evidence, hence the name "supernatural". It would take some incredible events to back up the claims the religious take on faith. Incredible.

So, if you're uncomfortable with the designation of "materialist", then shall we settle on the designation "empiricist"-- which is the philosophy that you espouse above?

Prove your assertion empirically. Empirically show that supernatural causes are outside of physical evidence. Prove the assertion, empirically, that it would take incredible events to prove supernatural causes.

A person who has left a beach is no longer a part of the beach, but ordinary footprints could tell us much of who was there.

Again, empirically prove the philosophy of empiricism.

What other type of knowledge is there?

There is empirical evidence.

There is forensic evidence.

There is philosophical/logical evidence.

There is evidence from personal experience.

There is spiritual knowledge that comes from a divine, intelligent Creator, and imparted to those who accept Him and become reborn as both physical and spiritual beings.

I know that the last one is the greatest that you would take issue with. So, short of materialistic/naturalistic/empiricist philosophical a priori beliefs, tell me why it is invalid.

Again, prove that empirical evidence is the only trustworthy evidence. Until you prove that, you are operating on a priori assumptions while proclaiming that you are not.

That taken on faith? If so, why are you even bothering with this trying to explain the flood through physical means?

Because the Bible made definitive statements about what happened in our physical reality. Therefor, I can observe physical reality for the indications as to whether the testimony of the Bible is true.

As a matter of fact, if you go back and read, I didn't enter the conversation until one person misrepresented what the Bible's testimony of physical reality was. Then I came into the conversation. Because I believe that those testimonies can be judged against what we may or may not find. It's obvious from that point in the argument that the physical testimony about supernatural things has great bearing on what physical evidence we may find, and further, what logical conclusions we would come to about the supernatural event-- thus disproving your assertion that the physical evidence would be totally disconnected from either the physical evidence, or out ability to rationalize the supernatural occurrence.

I really don't think you understand what a priori is, or what the difference is between taking something on faith versus examinining the evidence and putting forth a guess (theory) that fits the evidence....

a priori -- being without examination or analysis

or

a priori -- formed or conceived beforehand

Show that:

Matter and energy are all that exist.

If you are uncomfortable with that, then at least prove the philosophy that you are promoting in practice, in this very post-- the proposition that the only form of valid knowledge is that which is empirically proven.

If you can't, it is an a priori proposition.

Example 1: I can observe A, B, and C happening. Further, I can mathematically and/or logically prove D and E are possible. Given all that together, I'm theorizing X is what's happening. Any gaps in the theory is simply stated as unknown, but open to speculation. If any or all of A-D turns out to be misunderstood, or new evidence F comes along that is strong enough then theory X needs to be reformulated or scrapped altogether.

An addendum:

From materialistic scientists:

I am interpreting all of this within the preformed naturalistic philosophy. If my theory is disproved by evidence, I will change to a different theory within my naturalistic philosophy. If the evidence totally abolished my naturalistic philosophy (paradigm), then I may or may not change to a different philosophy/paradigm.

From the theistic POV:

I am interpreting all of this from within my theistic philosophy. If I come across rational evidence that threatens my theory, I will change my theory within my theistic philosophy. If the evidence totally abolishes my theistic philosophy, I may or may not change to a different philosophy/paradigm.

See how much different your example looks when the dividing line changes from science/theistic to naturalistic/theistic. When the dividing line is correctly drawn at the worldview level, then they don't look so different in practice, and you are not left to improperly grasp for yourself the "harbinger of truth".

Note: One of the reasons that I spend so much time studying the world around me is that I am very open to my theory of reality being challenged and amended. Even within my theistic worldview, my understanding of the Universe and God have changed greatly over the years due what I see around me. I expect they will again.

I am completely open to my theories being challenged and changing.

Are you? Really?

That was my reason for the question earlier that you seemed to miss. What would it take for you to disbelieve NATURAL abiogenesis? For, if anything indeed made that change, you would be changing a worldview, not retreating from science.

Example 2: X happened. A Priori. I have found evidence A and B that shows this. Evidence C and D that refute it or make it problematic doesn't matter because of the first two sentences. The rest that can't be explained is attributed to supernatural forces taken on faith. Because of this, X could never be scrapped as wrong.

I think that I showed above that this was an improper comparison. You expect me to change a worldview, as opposed to a theory. You allow materialism/naturalism/empiricism to change a theory while holding onto its worldview.

One example is more intellectually honest and requires nothing to be taken as truth up front. Find me that pre-Cambrian rabbit fossil and I'm prepared to seriously discount evolutionary theory. I show you a document that shows Jesus was a figment of imagination or a fraud and it's discounted off the bat. Because of faith, Jesus and his miracles happened, nothing will change that. You've even said as much. If Jesus were to come down from the sky trailing clouds of glory then I would bow down before him and regard the Bible as a scientific document. But it isn't, it's a document of pure faith, outside the rational bounds of thought constrained by evidence.

The entire comparison was intellectually dishonest. I've shown a lot in your paradigm that has been taken up front.

There are different theories within evolutionary biology, which seek to explain the same evidence from different naturalistic theories-- just because they are not willing to set aside their paradigm. To many, the paradigm is stated as indisputable fact, thus an admission they will never set it aside. This is not science.

If Jesus came back in clouds of glory. You would change your paradigm. Great. You don't expect it to happen.

If you present me evidence that disproves my theism, I promise you I would change my paradigm. I promise you. Now, just like you... I don't expect it to happen.

Because we both have faith in our paradigms.

Which one is a priori?

Hint. They both begin as a priori beliefs. I now have access to a greater source of knowledge than you do. You'll have to prove your unproveable, a priori paradigm of empiricism to say that I can't possibly have access to that.

Ready to give it a try?

For that matter... Ready to admit to your faith in that paradigm? It would be a healthy start.

 

[Obsessed]

Orangecrush- if you don't mind me asking

What do you do for a living?

 

[PKT_VOL]

OK. I'll make it very understandable. Prove that matter and energy are all that exist. If you can't, then it is an a priori statement of faith.

It's that simple.

Note that, from a rational and logical perspective, you would have to have more knowledge than you claim is available to in fact prove what you claim-- thus, your statement of faith is a logical, paradoxical, contradiction.

You would have to escape the physical plane of existence to prove that there is nothing more than the physical plane of existence. Homer Simpson would have to escape the second dimension to disprove the third, which would prove that there was more than the second.

This is important, because your paradigm also claims that the only valid form of knowledge is that which is empirically proven. But that statement is not empirically proven. So, what you have in scientific materialism is a collection of logical contradiction, stated as fact, and claiming not to be a worldview based on faith. I'll give an example from someone I would think you consider a hero. It comes from one of your camp's (perceived) intellectual giants. He makes a religious statement as fact-- religiously defined by his own definition.

LOL. He just turned untested belief into unshakable truth through the institution of scientific materialism-- literally with the passage of time. lol

You still are not making sense. It is not a priori statement.

If you are going to retreat to skepticism, which is logically valid, then you have to retreat all the way to Descartes cogito "I think, therefore I am" (or I doubt, therefore I am). That would mean that one cannot trust their senses.

This would apply to everyone; both scientists and theologists.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Why should it? Is it a logical rule that multiple, opposing statements of truth invalidate all statements of truth on that subject?

I am curious why you think that would be the case.

___

Edit, to insert examples, since some on here seem to have a harder time following me:

Darwinian Evolution and Punctuated Equilibrium both claim to state the truth of naturalistic evolution. Does that disprove evolution?

String Theory and the Big Bang both claim a cosmological truth. Does that disprove all cosmological truth?

:hi:

First, knowledge of absolute truth by humans is impossible.

Second, everyone else, all pursuits of "truth", are just mere fallible human theories (given time and space) to get closer to absolute truth.

Third, all theories are not equal. All theories are incomplete. Incomplete theories that do not explain absolute truth (which is impossible) do not necessarily invalid the theory.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The concepts that I am discussing, per the materialist/naturalist philosophical attachments to the modern scientific process are pretty openly and boldly discussed in the paper linked:

Steven Schafersman, "Naturalism Is Today An Essential Part of Science"

Naturalism is, ironically, a controversial philosophy. Our modern civilization depends totally for its existence and future survival on the methods and fruits of science, naturalism is the philosophy that science created and that science now follows with such success, yet the great majority of humans (at least 90% of the U.S. population) believe in the antithesis of naturalism—supernaturalism.

"Science" as defined is naturalism. The author correctly diagnoses that "science" as practiced today, is founded upon a paradigm philosophy called naturalism. What are the statements of that philosophy?

Definitions

Naturalism is

"a species of philosophical monism according to which whatever exists or happens is natural in the sense of being susceptible to explanation through methods which, although paradigmatically exemplified in the natural sciences, are continuous from domain to domain of objects and events...[thus, there cannot] exist any entities or events which lie, in principle, beyond the scope of scientific explanation" (Danto, 1967, p. 448);

"the view that nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature" (Audi, 1984, p. 372);

"the twofold view that (1) everything is composed of natural entities--those studied in the sciences--whose properties determine all the properties of things, persons included, ...abstract entities... like possibilities...and mathematical objects...and (2) acceptable methods of justification and explanation are commensurable, in some sense, with those in science" (Post, 1995, p. 517);

"the view that everything is natural, i.e. that everything there is belongs to the world of nature, and so can be studied by the methods appropriate for studying that world..." (Lacey, 1995, p. 604);

"the philosophical movement that "wishes to use the methods of science, evidence, and reason to understand nature and the place of human species within it"..."skeptical of the postulation of a transcendental realm beyond nature, or of the claim that nature can be understood without using the methods of reason and evidence"... and "the philosophical generalization of the methods and conclusions of the sciences" (Kurtz, 1990, p. 7, 12).

In my own definition, a synthesis of those above, naturalism is the philosophy that maintains that (1) nature is all there is and whatever exists or happens is natural; (2) nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal material elements--matter and energy--and non-material elements--mind, ideas, values, logical relationships, etc.--that are either associated with the human brain or exist independently of the brain and are therefore somehow immanent in the structure of the universe; (3) nature works by natural processes that follow natural laws, and all can, in principle, be explained and understood by science and philosophy; and (4) the supernatural does not exist, i.e., only nature is real, therefore, supernature is non-real. Naturalism is therefore a metaphysical position opposed mainly by supernaturalism. It is not an ethical system, although a variety--pragmatic naturalism, a synthesis of pragmatism and naturalism--does develop ethical positions. Furthermore, naturalism is a subset of metaphysical realism.

Note the bolded and underlined.

Naturalistic science makes bold claims about reality. The author also freely admits that these claims are metaphysical (i.e. a priori objects of faith), and that it is a philosophy that is in opposition to supernaturalism.

Thus, science (as defined for use in this discussion) is founded upon a worldview/metaphysics of unproven statements. Some here want to equivocate. They want to say: "Science is the source of *real* truth." What they are actually saying is: "My unproven worldview is more true than your unproven worldview."

It is cheap, intellectually dishonest, and creates false dichotomies.

I am hesitant to attribute motives. I do not know if those in this thread miss the point because they recognize the issue and are hesitant to admit to their poor arguments and philosophy, or if they are just too bound up in the belief of their a priori metaphysical beliefs to recognize that they are a priori metaphysical beliefs.

 

[Orange_Crush]

First, knowledge of absolute truth by humans is impossible.

Second, everyone else, all pursuits of "truth", are just mere fallible human theories (given time and space) to get closer to absolute truth.

Third, all theories are not equal. All theories are incomplete. Incomplete theories that do not explain absolute truth (which is impossible) do not necessarily invalid the theory.

You really could have saved some typing by just typing the words:

"I agree with you. Multiple claims of truth on the same subject do not, in themselves, discredit the truth of any one statement."

 

[Orange_Crush]

You still are not making sense. It is not a priori statement.

If you are going to retreat to skepticism, which is logically valid, then you have to retreat all the way to Descartes cogito "I think, therefore I am" (or I doubt, therefore I am). That would mean that one cannot trust their senses.

This would apply to everyone; both scientists and theologists.

Are we both talking about the same statement? Please post, back to me, what statement you are claiming is not a priori, and the definition of a priori you are using.

 

[Orange_Crush]

First, knowledge of absolute truth by humans is impossible.

Oh, and for the record, prove that statement. You know... Since you're all "scientific" and all. And since you don't operate on unproven, untested, a priori, metaphysical beliefs.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Orangecrush- if you don't mind me asking

What do you do for a living?

Information Technology.

 

[Obsessed]

Information Technology.

Thank you sir.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Prove your assertion empirically. Empirically show that supernatural causes are outside of physical evidence. Prove the assertion, empirically, that it would take incredible events to prove supernatural causes.

Nobody can prove that there isn't supernatural deity. But that same token, no one can prove that there is a supernatural deity.

You can't prove (in your sense of the word) the spaghetti flying monster doesn't exist, that unicorns don't exist, that I am not God, that Descartes' great Deceiver doesn't exists.

All you get from this is a retreat to skepticism which envelopes everything including your religion.

A person who has left a beach is no longer a part of the beach, but ordinary footprints could tell us much of who was there.

One assumes such a thing. It certainly doesn't prove sh*t with your skepticism.

There is empirical evidence.

There is forensic evidence.

There is evidence from personal experience.

This is a posteriori knowledge.

There is philosophical/logical evidence.

This is a poster knowledge.

There is spiritual knowledge that comes from a divine, intelligent Creator, and imparted to those who accept Him and become reborn as both physical and spiritual beings.

Spiritual knowledge is just a posteriori knowledge from various "spiritual" influence in your life (parents, religious leader, etc) and the Bible (for you, other religious texts for others). It is not its own type of knowledge.

 

[PKT_VOL]

You really could have saved some typing by just typing the words:

"I agree with you. Multiple claims of truth on the same subject do not, in themselves, discredit the truth of any one statement."

You missed what I said. We don't agree. Go back and reread it.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Are we both talking about the same statement? Please post, back to me, what statement you are claiming is not a priori, and the definition of a priori you are using.

The main definition (independent of experience) and the one that is prudent given the skepticism you are invoking with evidence, proof, experience, etc.